ACPO and Bikes

I confess, I’m a bit late with this story; it all blew up at about the time that I was up to my eyeballs with my house move. Still, better late then never.

ACPO has recently submitted a report to the transport select committee seeking motorcycles to be banned from certain areas under the banner of road safety.

Now, you might ask, what ACPO thinks it is doing getting involved in the lawmaking process; after all the police are there to uphold law, not create it. I could understand if their advice was sought regarding the policing of a proposal should it become law, but otherwise, I would expect them to shut up and do the job for which we pay them, that is; policing by consent of the electorate.

Still, there are some twist and turns to this story. The Telegraph article by Kevin Ash starts thus:

The ACPO submission said: “There is a need for radical thinking in respect of motorcycles, including consideration of engine capability and the creation of protection zones where all motorcycles other than those specifically permitted, would be prohibited.”

As Ash points out, the correlation between accidents and engine capability is notable by its complete absence. He also reminds us of the particularly egregious bikers’ bogeyman of the nineteen eighties, Martin Bangermann who tried a similar tack and was defeated for exactly that reason – big bikes are no more likely to be involved an an accident than small ones.

ACPO, having been caught out then went into a Neil Hardinesque denial:

In a press release responding to concerns about the ACPO submission, David Griffin, Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, stated: “It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles,” even though it is clear in the report that ACPO suggests prohibiting motorcycles from some roads. The press release also said that ACPO does not have a position on imposing specific power limits on motorcycles, yet they appear to have a position in the submission to the Transport Committee.

This seems to be a tactic indulged in by the Labour party and its acolytes; a tactic now enjoyed by the servants of the state; when caught with one’s pants down; lie.

David Griffin said, “ACPO’s evidence to the Select Committee referred to consideration of restrictions on the use of off-road motorcycles in environmentally sensitive areas where noise and environmental damage have arisen as a significant concern to local communities.”

Ah… So it’s off-road bikes we are talking about is it? Now anyone paying attention might just note a similarity here with the right to roam issue recently discussed. Except that, on the whole, the only people who have a problem with green lane bikers are the ramblers who don’t much like equestrians either.

Except, as Ash notes:

Yet the ACPO evidence does not mention either off-road motorcycles or environmental concerns.

So, they are lying, then. Oh, and it gets worse. Remember the accusations made earlier in  the year about bikers being a bunch of tax evaders? Well, ACPO do:

Another strange claim by ACPO to the committee is that motorcycling presents a problem of “Vehicle Excise Duty evasion on a massive scale.” This appears to be based on a DVLA report published at the beginning of this year suggesting that almost 40 per cent of motorcycles are untaxed, even though an apology was later issued by the Commons public accounts committee when it was discovered the figures were wrong, and the true number was only slightly greater for motorcycles than cars, at about six per cent. In its submission, ACPO used the 40 per cent figure to suggest that motorcycles should be fitted with electronic chips to allow automatic vehicle identification. ACPO did not respond to The Daily Telegraph’s query about this.

So, there we have it, ACPO are a bunch of liars who are presenting “evidence” to a select committee. Kevin Ash is somewhat polite when he refers to their “evidence” as demonstrably unreliable.

It gets better, mind:

A further inaccuracy presented to the committee by ACPO is that, “Production machines are readily available for use on our roads with top speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour.” In fact there are no production bikes capable of more than 200mph, even without the motorcycle industry’s voluntary 186mph speed limitation.

This does tend to beg the question; just how much of the submission is, indeed, factual, rather than the kind of prejudice, bigotry and ignorance one would normally expect from a politician or party acolyte? These statements are just the type of sweeping generalisations and assertions that I would expect from the uninformed who know nothing about bikes, driving or road safety. I should expect better from ACPO. That I don’t and am entirely unsurprised is a statement on the politicisation of our police force.

Following the article, ACPO responded:

[David griffin] He said that ACPO’s official position was neutral on power restrictions, was not in favour of any form of ban on road bikes and did not “consider motorcycles as nothing more than motorised toys”. He said, “These comments in the submission to the select committee need to be taken in the context in which they were made, which is part of one of our regular discussion groups where they were only some of many ideas being discussed. The bans were talked about while the problems of off-road machines with noisy exhausts were being aired; we are not calling for any ban on road bikes.” What about the inaccuracies? “We accept the comment about VED avoidance is wrong and we will be sending an amendment to the select committee correcting that.”

Not good enough, frankly. They should get their facts straight in the first place. As the Telegraph points out:

The problem here is that, while the inaccuracies might be corrected, the context Griffin speaks of is not clear in the submission to ACPO, so will they be clarifying that too? “I’m not in a position to promise that, but I can say we will discuss the possibility.”

And, they point out that it was Griffin’s predecessor who was responsible, placing Griffin in a difficult position. Well, that’s up to Griffin to do the honourable thing, isn’t it?

 it was clear to us from speaking with him that he does not agree with it and that it does not represent ACPO’s real position. What he must do, however, is ensure the situation is corrected as far as the select committee is concerned.

Quite. I await with interest.